Foreign Affairs Committee on April 13th, 2021

[Dr. Bessma Momani]

On that question, which I think is a really important one, you have to ask where the technology is being used. In Libya, in some way, I'd say yes, because it is supporting the internationally sanctioned government.

In Syria, as well, it's certainly being used to fight ISIS and to defend the Syrian people against Russian incursions.

I don't think so within Iraq, where the war against the PKK has come with a great deal of human rights abuses, despite the fact that the PKK are pretty terrible themselves. That said, Iraq has certainly been really helpful supporting the Kurdish government of Iraq and has very much been fighting ISIS as well there, supporting us.

I think in the recent conflict, Nagorno-Karabakh, I'd say no. It was a frozen conflict. I think peace and stability would have been best served by keeping that conflict frozen. Certainly there's lots to be said about the fact that most of the population were ethnic Armenian, even though, I think, by international law standards, perhaps the territory did belong to Azerbaijan; but for the people on the ground, I don't think you could measure that as keeping peace and security.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Dr. Momani, for that answer.

You mentioned human rights abuses in Iraq, particularly against the Kurdish minority. The Global Affairs report concludes on page 14 as follows:

Taking into account the considerations set out below and after a review of UN and other open-source reporting, the department assesses that there is no substantial risk that Canadian exports of military goods and technology to Turkey would be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of [international humanitarian law].

That would seem to be a different conclusion from the one you've just outlined with respect to the Kurdish minority.

The other interesting thing in the report is that the department also concludes that these military exports would not undermine peace and security. It concludes:

...overall, Canadian exports of military good and technology to Turkey contribute to regional peace and security, despite some recent instances that warrant some concerns.

Finally, it concludes that:

There is no evidence to suggest that the Canadian exports of military goods and technology to Turkey have had any significant impact towards destabilizing the region.

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect here between some of the conclusions in the report and what we know has been taking place over the last two years on the ground in the region.

I'll just put it out there that the entire process by which these permits are risk-assessed and approved seems to be broken within Global Affairs.

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

Mr. Chong, I think our emphasis—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Give a very brief answer, please, because we're almost out of time.

Please go ahead, Professor Leuprecht.

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

Our emphasis needs to be on the track record that a particular country has with regard to our equipment and to the equipment provided by our multilateral partners in order to maintain the integrity of the multilateral export control system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chong.

Mr. Fonseca, you have six minutes, please. The floor is yours.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our panellists.

We heard from the first panel in the first round that, through GAC, Canada reviews over 6,000 export permit applications per year. Then we heard that they do quite an extensive review. There's a policy and a process in place. It looks very thorough from we heard.

I want to ask the panellists—and this could be for any one of the panellists—how many other countries use independent oversight over sales and permits of military exports? How many countries do that in the world?

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

What do you understand by independent oversight?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

I mean independent oversight as we heard from Global Affairs.

Do the other countries put the human rights lens, as we do, on those permits?

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

As you're probably aware, there are four international regimes now with the ATT that added a fifth qualitative measure on the regimes that are currently in place. Those include things such as the Wassenaar agreement that lay baseline benchmarks against which all parties to the regimes assess export-control permits.

However, the interpretation of those benchmarks is then ultimately a function of sovereignty. Even within that legislation—that sovereignty—all of those countries still accord considerable discretion to the ministers or secretaries of state when it comes to foreign affairs. This is precisely because, for all of those countries, arms exports of defence technology is an instrument of foreign policy.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

We heard of course heard that the minister cancelled the export permits to Turkey. He took quite a measure there.

Are other countries taking these types of measures? Have you seen these types of measures by other countries?

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

We saw the aggressive measures by France, for instance, which also had political reasons, namely, their own particular geostrategic interests, the way they see Turkey as a regional actor and their understanding of Turkey's reliability as a NATO member country.

Different countries within the same benchmarks have very much arrived at different conclusions, and they have done so at different points in time with regard to export permits of defence materials to Turkey.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Professor Momani, we did a study on Nagorno-Karabakh, and we heard during the study that Azerbaijan really overpowered the Armenians with the resources they had and the amount of money they were putting into this.

Can you give us a bit more insight into that in terms of Azerbaijan and the Armenians?

[Dr. Bessma Momani]

Yes, absolutely.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

You also mentioned it.

[Dr. Bessma Momani]

Yes. Thank you.

Azerbaijan has been acquiring a number of weapon systems for the past, I'd say, 10 to 15 years. In fact, many were wondering what the reason for the stockpile was. It seemed to be that.... Those who are watching the region thought that indeed they were going to try to take back this region.

They've been investing very heavily. They have of course been buying mostly Israeli technology. There is a bit of Turkish technology, but most of their weapon systems are Israeli.

I think Azerbaijan is a country that has a lot of wealth, and it is certainly increasingly trying to play up its nationalistic base. The president is very much a nationalist, and this was a very popular war by the standards of most Azeris.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

They would have brought in tens, hundreds or maybe thousands of weapons from many different places. You said Israel and other places around the world, but there were many places and thousands of weapons, and we're talking about a few cameras that came from Canada.

Dr. Kilford, could Turkey import similar sensor systems from other countries? Are they available for their drones?

[Dr. Chris Kilford]

Yes, they could. There are other manufacturers, but they prefer the Wescam. The Wescam has obviously grabbed huge market share around the world because it's a very, very high-quality product. I wouldn't put it past the Turks to also develop their own systems. I think they are on track to doing that.

It's one thing when they say they don't need us. The reality probably is that they still do. They may say they have their own capability, but I reckon they would love to have our Wescam cameras back on their drones and keep using them. They could search out other suppliers.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

As you heard, Dr. Kilford, there are many, many weapons around the world.

Could you provide us with some examples, with your insight from the region, on Canada-Turkey-NATO co-operation programs?

[Dr. Chris Kilford]

We don't have a tremendous amount of co-operation, but when you look at the NATO headquarters in Baghdad that's been training the Iraqi armed forces, over the last two years Canada has been in command and Turkey has been second in command. We are working very closely with the Turks. That gives you one example of where there is co-operation, so yes, there is, but I probably wouldn't say it is a large amount of co-operation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Fonseca, you have time for a very brief question and answer.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Okay. I'll pass on the time, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Great. Thank you so much.

Mr. Bergeron, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank our witnesses for their testimony; it is very helpful for the work of this committee. If I may say, they put into perspective the opinions expressed by officials from Global Affairs Canada a few moments ago.

Two points seem to emerge from their remarks. First, it is clear that the difficulty with our arms sales to a country like Turkey has to do with the fact that they are a member of NATO. If that were not the case, it would be much easier for Canada to take a position on arms sales to that country.

The other point is that we still are not very aware of the change that is taking place in that country. Contrary to what Ms. Momani told us, Mr. Leuprecht, you indicate in your document that the Turkish intervention in Libya is basically at odds with NATO policies. By that you mean that Turkey has in the past adopted a sovereign foreign policy whose objectives diverge from those of NATO. That is what we see. My reading tells me that this is also the case in Syria, where the Turks have famously turned against the Kurds, who were once our allies against Daesh.

Could you talk to us about the paradigm shift that seems to be in the process of taking place? I mean that Turkey, which has always been somewhat of an unruly ally within NATO, is becoming even more so with the change taking place inside the country.

[Dr. Christian Leuprecht]

Turkey is undertaking a revisionist and hegemonic foreign policy which, at some times, coincides with our interests and NATO's interests, but, at other times, does the opposite. Turkey does not ask NATO or Canada to tell it what policy to follow, as Libya does, for example. So our interests sometimes coincide and sometimes do not coincide, almost at random.

So that must be considered. Turkey often acts in a much more sovereign and unilateral fashion than most other NATO member countries. We see that in our Department of Foreign Affairs, since, for a number of years, Turkey has been the object of many more specific investigations about arms export permits than other NATO members.

The points you are raising, therefore, are already considered by the minister and his officials when it comes to issuing permits.